What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065815 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for a suppression order is withdrawn at the applicant’s request

How much money was awarded in case 5065815?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065815?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065815?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12413820-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065815 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for a suppression order is withdrawn at the applicant’s request

How much money was awarded in case 5065815?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065815?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065815?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12413820-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Ramsey Street, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5065815 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for a suppression order is withdrawn at the applicant’s request
[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $15,341.18 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 21/11/2024$13,254.00 Water rates: final two invoices$365.18 Rubbish removal: and lawns$195.00 Repairs: Kitchen cupboards$750.00 Repairs: to walls$750.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$15,341.18 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$16,341.18
The claim for lock/key replacement is withdrawn at the applicant’s request.
The application for suppression is withdrawn at the applicant’s request.
The remainder of the applicant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord Suresh Ganesh attended the hearing represented by his wife [The landlord/s]. The tenant [The tenant/s] attended the hearing on behalf of all three tenants.
The landlord advised that there was a previous tenancy which commenced in 2023 and the tenants were [The tenant/s] and Kristy MacGown, Kristy left and Naina took over the tenancy jointly with her sons in July 2024.
A fresh tenancy agreement was entered into on 3 July 2024 with the currently named parties as tenants. The parties agreed that the new tenancy commenced on 4 July 2024.
This application will therefore consider claims relating to the tenancy that commenced in July 2024.
The tenants lived in the premises with their family.
The premises are a two-storey house with six bedrooms and two kitchens. The landlord stated that the second kitchen was not legal.
The tenancy ended on 21 November 2024 after the landlord’s application was filed.
On 14 May 2025 the Tribunal agreed to amend the claims to include vacated claims and the claims as listed below: - Rent arrears - Water arrears - Lock/key replacement - Rubbish removal - Kitchen repair - Blind repair - Carpet repair - Wall repairs
The proceedings were adjourned for further evidence to be filed by the landlord.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 21 November 2024. The landlord provided an amended rent summary which records rent charged and rent paid from 4 July 2024 to 21 November 2025. The bond has already been applied to the rent. The tenant accepted there were rent arrears but questioned two extra payments she believed had been made. The landlord accounted for these and showed where they were included in the rent summary.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the amount of $13,254.00 is owed to the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water charges?

The landlord provided water invoices and a summary statement showing what is owed after deduction of the fixed charges. The landlord sought the sum of $1127.27. The tenant agreed that she owed water but stated that she had never received invoices from the landlord during the tenancy. The landlord stated that the invoices were sent to the tenancy address but never followed these up or made arrangements to pay the fixed charges. The tenant stated that she never saw the invoices.
Section 39 of The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the landlord is responsible for all outgoings that apply whether or not the premises is occupied. That is why the landlord is responsible for fixed charges on the water bills. The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the tenancy premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or the tenant’s use of the facilities.
In his decision in Woollams v Simpson CIV 2005-004-1583 16/3/2006 in the District Court in Auckland, Judge McElrea, observes that there is an implied term in a tenancy agreement that the landlord ought to provide accounts to the tenant at regular intervals so as to enable payment to be made. At paragraph 13 he states “... in my view, the implied term which I read into the Act and into this agreement is necessary in order to make the clause a workable one from a commercial point of view, and in order to decide this matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case [as provided by s85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986].”
In the facts of this case the tenants were not supplied with water charges for the duration of the tenancy of five months. The landlord did not take any action to investigate why they were not receiving the water invoices and whether water charges were being paid until contacted by a debt collector.
The landlord did not take responsibility for following up the water invoices and paying the fixed charges during the tenancy. The tenants had no opportunity to consider the bills on a monthly basis and query any irregularities.
The District Court considered that the water charges that arose within a reasonable time frame prior to the application to the Tenancy Tribunal were recoverable and ordered the tenant to pay the last two accounts. In line with the District Court decision I order the tenants to pay the final two water invoices dated 29 October and 29 November 2024 as this application was filed In November 2024. The landlord water statement records the balance owed for these two invoices as $273.62 and $91.56 which total $365.18 and this amount is ordered accordingly.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants did not leave the lawns and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided end of tenancy photographs and an invoice for the work done and I am satisfied the claim is proved on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord claimed that the tenants did not return the keys but provided no invoice for compensation and the claim was withdrawn.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The general principle stated in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is that tenants have no liability or obligation and must not be required to make good the cost of any destruction or damage to the premises unless the landlord can prove otherwise. See section 49A RTA.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims that damage was caused during the tenancy. The claims will be considered in turn below.
Kitchen appliances (a)The landlord claimed that the oven, rangehood and dishwasher were damaged by the tenants during the tenancy and required replacement. The landlord provided photographs of the inside of the oven, the rangehood and the dishwasher showing a broken handle. The landlord provided entry photographs of the premises taken in 2023 but these are not relevant to this tenancy. The landlord also provided photographs taken during an inspection during the previous tenancy in April 2024 whilst the tenant was in occupation. There were no entry photographs taken at the beginning of this tenancy. (b)The tenant denied causing careless damage to the appliances and stated that any damage was fair wear and tear during normal use. The tenant acknowledged that the oven was dirty but stated that it was working at the end of the tenancy. She stated that the stovetop was unsafe as the main gas hob ignition did not work and a lighter was required to start it. She stated that on one occasion near the end of the tenancy the flames leapt up and set the rangehood alight. She stated that she rang the landlord who did not send anyone to investigate. She later discovered that the rangehood filter was just black and needed a clean which she did. She stated that afterwards the rangehood still worked. In respect of the dishwasher the tenant stated that the handle was already cracking and that it damaged further due to wear and tear. (c)I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenants are responsible for the kitchen appliance damage and liable for replacement costs for the following reasons: i. The landlord has not provided clear evidence of the age and condition of the items at the commencement of the tenancy but stated that they were old and in working order. ii. The tenant disputes that the oven and rangehood were not working at the end of the tenancy. She stated she was still using them. The tenant notified the landlord of the issue with the rangehood and the stove top towards the end of the tenancy. The landlord stated that they did not send a technician as the tenancy was ending soon. Therefore, the landlord has provided no diagnosis from a technician regarding the condition of the appliances. The landlord has not provided evidence that the oven and rangehood were not working at the end of the tenancy. iii. I am not satisfied that the cracked dishwasher handle is beyond fair wear and tear having regard to the age of the dishwasher. The photographs provided by the landlord show that there was wear to the dishwasher handle in April 2024 and this wear has increased by the end of the tenancy.
Kitchen cupboards (a)The landlord claimed that the tenants damaged kitchen cupboard doors. Photographs were provided of the pantry door and a cupboard door from under the sink that were completely off their hinges and leaning against the cupboards. The landlord claimed that other doors were damaged also but no photographs were provided. (b)The tenant claimed that the cupboards came off because their hinges broke due to fair wear and tear whilst being used. However, there was no evidence that the tenant notified the landlord of this. Tenants have a responsibility to notify the landlord of maintenance matters to give the landlord the opportunity to remedy before the problem gets worse. I find therefore that the damage to the cupboards was carelessly caused. (c)The landlord stated that the same colour cupboards could not be found and provided a quote to replace the entire kitchen in the sum of $13,500 dated 11 December 2024. This quote expired in January 2025 and the landlord has not provided an invoice for the actual cost of work done. The landlord did not provide a report from a contractor assessing the damage and advising whether the cupboards were repairable or not. The quote provided includes electrical work, plumbing and gas and a splashback which goes well beyond repair of cupboard doors. Although I am satisfied that the tenants should have notified the landlord of the problems with the cupboard doors I am unable to ascertain from the evidence what the cost to remedy is. (d)When the tenancy agreement was signed by the parties, the landlord declared that the property was insured and that the excess was $750.00. The agreement states “There is insurance covering this rental property that is relevant to the tenants’ liability for damage to premises.” The box ‘yes’ is ticked and type of insurance noted by the landlord in the Agreement is “residential”. (e)The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where damage is caused carelessly, and the landlord has insured the property against damage, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. (f)The landlord stated that they did not have insurance cover for tenant damage but the rent agreement states the opposite. (g)In summary, the landlord informed the tenants that they could rely on cover for tenant damage when renting the property. The landlord cannot now succeed in a claim against the tenants based on there being no insurance for this event. (h)The tenants are ordered to pay $750.00, being the equivalent amount of the owner’s excess.
Wall repairs (a)The landlord provided photographs of wall damage including some small holes in the wall and damage to the door frame in the lounge. (b)The tenant accepted liability for damage marks to walls and stated that the damage to the wall above the door frame in the lounge was caused when it was knocked accidentally by her husband. I find that the wall damage is careless damage. (c)As stated in paragraph 28(g) the landlord has informed the tenants that there is cover for tenant damage. The landlord has provided a quote for a full house repaint including ceilings. I do not accept on the limited photographic evidence provided that the tenant is liable for a full house repaint and in any event ceiling paintwork was not included in the landlords amended claim as recorded on 14 May 2025. Therefore, I find it appropriate compensation to order the tenants to pay an amount equivalent to the insurance excess for the damage being $750.00.
Carpet repairs (a)The landlord claimed that there was damage to the carpet as a result of the tenants having a dog at the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement. (b)The tenant agreed that they had a dog but disputed the smell and carpet damage. She stated that the dog was kept upstairs in the living area and the smell and stains to the carpet were downstairs and caused by a previous tenant. (c)I have carefully considered the tenancy agreement dated 4 July 2024, in particular clause 4 which contains special terms and I see no reference to pets being excluded. (d)The special terms in clause 4 include the following “This tenancy is done upon request from Naina as Kristy has abandoned the house in a very bad state where the carpet has chewing gum all over the place and drawing on the walls.” (e)The landlord has provided photographs of carpet damage but as this tenancy agreement records that there was damage at the beginning of the tenancy it is difficult to ascertain what if any damage was caused during this tenancy. (f)Therefore I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities.
Blinds (a)The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the vertical blinds as some of the beads were broken and some blinds could not close. (b)The tenant stated that some of the beads came off when the blinds were used but could be reattached. (c) A quote for replacement roller blinds for the house was provided dated 11 December 2024 but the landlord advised that the blinds have not yet been repaired or replaced and no evidence of actual cost to remedy is available. (d)I find that the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear as there is no evidence of a tradesperson assessing the damage and the cost of repair.
The landlord also referred to door repairs but these were not included in the amended claim or in the repair quote filed with the Tribunal and therefore will not be considered. Filing fee/Suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord applied for suppression but sought to withdraw the application at the hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065815 — Rent arrears at 9 Ramsey Street, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065815 — Rent arrears at 9 Ramsey Street, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water charges?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water charges?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?